Count Dookkake
Member
Hero said:It was a joke, maybe I'll make it more clear next time. How's your sister doing these days?
A joke based on a flawed premise. Unforgivable.

Sis is doing fine.
Hero said:It was a joke, maybe I'll make it more clear next time. How's your sister doing these days?
AFreak said:So knowing what they are like means I have to enjoy their shitty movies because that's what they were meant to be?
Opus Angelorum said:When someone states that the CGI "looks like shit", I'd like to know what standard they hold because the imagery in Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen in general is of a very high technical standard.
Hero said:It was a joke, maybe I'll make it more clear next time. How's your sister doing these days?
I never said the plotline was great nor defended it. This is a franchise that spawned from a toyline that was aimed at selling more toys. The fact that anything in the past 25 years had anything of actual substance or plot, I suppose Transformers The Animated Movie would be the crowning glory of the G1 era, is more than astounding. The franchise was, is and always will be aimed primarily at children to sell the toys and other merchandise. I'm not saying ROTF is not without criticism but a majority of the media reviews and impressions in this thread are akin to the typical GAFer buying some Petz game and complaining that it's too easy or too childish.
Good and bad are words that have very little weight to them. Transformers and ROTF are supposed to be summer blockbusters with lots of action and just enough of other stuff like romance and comedy to appeal to the masses just enough to get them to come to theaters. So in that vein where the appeal and demographic of the movie is to be mindless entertainment of explosions and a display of pioneer technology and eye candy, if ROTF does it well, how does that make it bad? If you're comparing it to something that is supposed to be taking itself "seriously" like Citizen Kane, then sure, you can call it bad. But if a person isn't going to be smart enough to determine what the demographic of a movie is and then complain about it then I can criticize them all I damn well please.
Tired from fucking my father.Hero said:It was a joke, maybe I'll make it more clear next time. How's your sister doing these days?
RadioHeadAche said:By no means a good movie, but fun to look at and it will make for a nice looking Blu-Ray. If nothing else, Micheal Bay makes a great exploding movie.
RobbieNick said:Michal Bay makes shit. It's pretty looking shit. But it's still shit nonetheless.
Oh god. My niece wants me to take her to see this. I liked the robot fights in the first film, but thought the humor was way too juvenile. So, how fucked am I?
the humor is beyond juvenile in this one. it's ridiculous. :\RobbieNick said:Michal Bay makes shit. It's pretty looking shit. But it's still shit nonetheless.
Oh god. My niece wants me to take her to see this. I liked the robot fights in the first film, but thought the humor was way too juvenile. So, how fucked am I?
How old is your niece? I'll take her.RobbieNick said:Michal Bay makes shit. It's pretty looking shit. But it's still shit nonetheless.
Oh god. My niece wants me to take her to see this. I liked the robot fights in the first film, but thought the humor was way too juvenile. So, how fucked am I?
Splatt said:I'm expecting giant robot battles. Am I going to be dissapointed?
I want to answer this a little because I know you're understandably proud of the effects, and you should be. 97% of the film CGI and effects were excellent, some bots seem to be better modelled and animated than others (especially Bumblebee I think. He gets a lot of the closeups so perhaps he was focused on a lot more). But there were definitely 2 or 3 times when it was not as good. A coupel of Arcee (or a bot that makes up part of her) moments springs immediately to mind, a bit with megatron in it, the decepticon hottie...XiaNaphryz said:I'm really curious why there seems to be a bunch of people who think the visual effects work is disappointing or flat out "bad."
Solo said:Pirates of the Caribbean 2, despite being 3 years old, is still my standard. Davy Jones. Iron Man is also up there.
sevenchaos said:I cringed at theand thehumping of the leg. The special effects were awesome. Better than the original.robot balls
And fuck, I love Shia.
omg rite said:I think you need to rewatch Iron Man again. Overall it wasn't bad, but the last battle was more noticable in terms of CG than anything in Transformers 1. Very cartoonish.
Solo said:Im referring strictly to Iron Man himself. The costume/suit.
Apparently 75 hours for a single frame of animation. Yeah, pretty damn insane. Also, I bet it's not ILM's fault that the climbing scene with Devastator was supposed to play out that way.kojacker said:SO we have a 150ft tall evil monstrosity, built like a mechnical gorilla from hell.. called DEVESTATOR! I read somewhere it took like 75 hours to render him for a shot.
Jason's Ultimatum said:Should I go in expecting Quantom of Solace hype sequel or what?
sorry, solo
Solo said:What are you apologizing for? QoS rocks.
I'm getting hate messages and unfollows on twitter because of my negative review
DanielPlainview said:I'm getting hate messages and unfollows on twitter because of my negative review :lol
LOLpizzaguysrevenge said:Tired from fucking my father.
![]()
Wait a sec...
DMczaf said:Note: I saw the film in IMAX. Only a few minutes of the film are shot in true IMAX, and those minutes are not complete sequences. Random shots will appear in IMAX, meaning that the aspect ratio for one shot will change. Take into account how quick your average Michael Bay shot is and you'll understand how bizarre this decision was. Another sign that nobody making the movie gave a shit.
Wat.
How is:Opus Angelorum said:I never suggested such a thing.
People criticise the CGI and provide no point of reference, nothing. Having an opinion, and an informed opinion are entirely different.
When someone states that the CGI "looks like shit", I'd like to know what standard they hold because the imagery in Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen in general is of a very high technical standard.
not suggesting that someone has to be CGI designer to critcize it?Opus Angelorum said:To those suggesting the CGI is poor, do they care present some of their own work? I love how people criticise something when they have zero knowledge of its complexity.
Jim said:Not that uncommon for movies with IMAX scenes. I don't mind it actually. Goes from widescreen to IMAX and back ratio quite a few times to fit the shots in certain scenes.
Jason's Ultimatum said:Should I go in expecting Quantom of Solace hype sequel or what?
sorry, solo
17,000 posts in and this one may be your shittiest yet!omg rite said:Nono, this is actually a good sequel.
DevelopmentArrested said:17,000 posts in and this one may be your shittiest yet!
omg rite said:Oh man, that's just hilarious. It's almost as if there weren't others who agreed it was good and you're being a cock about an -opinion- for no reason.
Good times, good times.
Anyway, back to the truth: good movie.
Blader5489 said::lol
adelante said:I'm not asking them to be less of a critic..but almost all these reviews are filled to brim with negativity, would it hurt for them to probably mention the "mindless fun" factor somewhere in the summary? Or is the movie so bad, its not even worth bringing your kids to go watch it? Because that's what a lot of these reviews seem to advocate